[Imaging of the prostate]

Can transrectal prostate ultrasound compete with multiparametric MRI in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer?

We consider the current and future role of transrectal ultrasound imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer, with a particular focus on the pre-biopsy localization and targeting role that multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has come to occupy for some men in recent years. We draw a distinction between transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) used only as a means of distributing zonal biopsies with its employment as a means for identifying and targeting sonographically abnormal lesions. The role of AI in lesion identification and targeting will be reviewed. Comparisons of cost and availability, frequency of contraindications and diagnostic accuracy between these two imaging modalities will be drawn.

Innovations in diagnostic imaging of localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

In recent years, various imaging modalities have been developed to improve diagnosis, staging, and localization of early-stage prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

A MEDLINE literature search of the time frame between 01/2007 and 06/2013 was performed on imaging of localized PCa.

RESULTS

Conventional transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) is mainly used to guide prostate biopsy. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound is based on the assumption that PCa tissue is hypervascularized and might be better identified after intravenous injection of a microbubble contrast agent. However, results on its additional value for cancer detection are controversial. Computer-based analysis of the transrectal ultrasound signal (C-TRUS) appears to detect cancer in a high rate of patients with previous biopsies. Real-time elastography seems to have higher sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value than conventional TRUS. However, the method still awaits prospective validation. The same is true for prostate histoscanning, an ultrasound-based method for tissue characterization. Currently, multiparametric MRI provides improved tissue visualization of the prostate, which may be helpful in the diagnosis and targeting of prostate lesions. However, most published series are small and suffer from variations in indication, methodology, quality, interpretation, and reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Among ultrasound-based techniques, real-time elastography and C-TRUS seem the most promising techniques. Multiparametric MRI appears to have advantages over conventional T2-weighted MRI in the detection of PCa. Despite these promising results, currently, no recommendation for the routine use of these novel imaging techniques can be made. Prospective studies defining the value of various imaging modalities are urgently needed.

Multiparametric ultrasound in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To investigate the advances and clinical results of the different ultrasound modalities and the progress in combining them into multiparametric UltraSound (mpUS).

METHODS

A systematic literature search on mpUS and the different ultrasound modalities included: greyscale ultrasound, computerized transrectal ultrasound, Doppler and power Doppler techniques, dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound and (shear wave) elastography.

RESULTS

Limited research available on combining ultrasound modalities has presented improvement in diagnostic performance. The data of two studies suggest that even adding a lower performing ultrasound modality to a better performing modality using crude methods can already improve the sensitivity by 13-51 %. The different modalities detect different tumours. No study has tried to combine ultrasound modalities employing a system similar to the PIRADS system used for mpMRI or more advanced classifying algorithms.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence confirms that combining different ultrasound modalities significantly improves diagnostic performance.

Comparison of image-guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review of well-designed studies

OBJECTIVE

The clinical utility of image-targeted biopsies can only be judged by a comparison of the current standard of systematic 10-12 core biopsy schemes. The aim of this review was to gather the current evidence in favor of or against targeted biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer based on well-designed, controlled studies, in order to draw clinical relevant conclusions.

SUBJECTS/PATIENTS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed addressing studies that compared the prostate cancer detection rates of targeted and systematic biopsy schemes using the imaging techniques of elastography, contrast-enhanced ultrasound, histoscanning and multiparametric MRI. Only well-designed, controlled studies were included and the results summarized.

RESULTS

All imaging techniques are associated with varying results regarding better or poorer detection rates relative to systematic biopsies. No technique provides a clear trend in favor of or against image-targeted biopsies. In almost all studies, the combination of targeted and systematic biopsies provided sometimes a substantial, increase in the detection rate relative to systematic biopsies alone. MRI-targeted biopsies show no advantage in the initial biopsy setting, whereas in the repeat biopsy setting improvements in the detection rates are often observed relative to systemic biopsies.

CONCLUSION

Based on well-designed, controlled studies no clear advantage of targeted biopsies over the current standard of systematic biopsies can be observed. Therefore, targeted biopsies cannot replace systematic biopsies in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. In all indications, the combination of systematic and targeted biopsy schemes provides the highest detection rate.